St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-11-04

himself to all cOmers graciOusly, but
never under any circumstances gives
either himself or state secrets away.
That it would be manifestly improper
and equally impossible to him 20 lay
bare the executive heart and the guber-
material mind to every journalistic in
quirer, to every
Humitarian Crank
and to every friend, bought or natural,
of the condemned, goes without saying.
As matter of fact the governor has
nothing to act upon unless he initiates
proceedings. The only petition for
clemency yet filed in the anarchist case
which has any pretense of legal form
is that presented by the Rev. Mr..
Blake. This petition shows faithful
attempt to comply with the require
| mentS of the statute, but there is still a
very serious doubt whether it will give
! the governor jurisdiction over all
I the defendants and legally empower
! him to commute the sentences, even if
he so desires. The petition gives his
tory of the case, statement of the
reasons why clemency is asked and eX-
plains that the opinions of the states
attorney and the trial Judge are not at
ia ached because the
Great NotOriety
, of the case makes these precautions
i needless for the information of the gov
ernOr. In respect to these particulars
the petition may probably be regarded
as legal, but it must be observed that
the document is not signed by any of
the defendants OF any person protesting
! 10 act on their authority and their be-
half. The statute on pardOnS expressly
! says that application shall be made by
| petition in writing to the governor,
1 signed by the party under conviction, or
! other persons in his behalf. What va
lNity attaches to a petition not so signed
! and which three of the defendants pro-
! nOunce wholly unauthorized? Lingg,
Fischer and Engel have formally mott
| fed the governor in writing that 10 one
/ has authority to ask communication of
| sentence in their behalf and that they
/ will refuse TO accept anything less than
! an unconditional pardon. granting ab-
| solute freedom. This action raises the
! question whether the governor can
| compel convicted prisoner against his
will to become the recipient of the
Executive Clemency.
The pardOning power of the governor
is virtually unlimited. when once legally
invoked. but both the constitution and
/ the statute seem to make certain pre-
! scribed application asking for clemency
! signed by the defendant or his author
lied agent, or attorney. an indispensable
! prerequisite to the lawful exercise of
such authority. Neither the cOnstitu-
ton nor the statute appear to cOntem-
plate such a thing as the granting of
mercy unasked, or in the face of pro-
test against it from the party most con-
cerned. In the absence of any suggcs-
ton to the contrary the governor might
perhaps assume that petition for elem
ency was authorized by the prisoner,
but in the case of Fischer. Engel and
Lingg he has been served with formal
notice to the contrary over the sigma
! lures of the prisoners themselves. Has
the governor jurisdiction in such cases?
If so, whence is his authority derived?
Simply as a matter of
Arbitrary Authority
the governor might, without having a
legal petition before him, commute
sentence of death to imprisonment and
on the receipt of properly attested
writ to that effect the sheriff's wardens
and jailers would have to obey the order
without question, no matter how much
the prisoners might object to go 70 the
states prison. 1t is not for these sub
ordinate officials to question or sit in
Judgment on the orders of the chief
magistrate of the state, but to obey
them forthwith. Nor is it likely that
in such case the courts could inter
fere. Ordinarily the only remedy for
misconduct and usurpatiOn Of author
ity by a governor is legislative impeach-
ment. If a governor usurps power and
grants pardonS or cOmmutes sentences
without having before him the applica-
ton required by law, he is liable to im-
peachment and may be punished
accordingly, but as the legislature will
not meet till after Gov. Oglesby's term
is just expiring. impeachment could not
be had unless the governor should
Summon Special Session
to take such proceedings against him
self. Practically, therefore, the gov
ernor can do as he sees fit, and may
force the anarchists to accept clemency,
although in so doing if not satisfied as
TO the legality of the petition he would
necessarily burden his conscience with
responsibility for questionable act.
w illc int y inpdliIi%liS liItIuS VI lne
anarchists are bringing every possible
pressure TO bear on the governor, three
of the defendants have deliberately
taken course which seems to make an
answer to the appeals in their case inl-
possible, unless the governor will as
sumo questionable authority. Certainly
it must be very difficult for the gov
ernOr to persuade himself that in the
face of the protests he can lawfully
commute the sentences of Engel,
Fischer and Lingg. These defendants